Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org>]

At Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:54:04 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant at cisco.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. Let's see if we can meet common ground with you.
> 
> Our justification for prohibiting on-link caching is only in emails to
> 6man as follows:
> 
>  "What if there are cache-inconsistency problems, prefix renumbering, 
>  or stale information?  I think it's better just to get rid of 
>  caching on-link information in stable storage and get such 
>  information fresh from RA's.  That way, administrators can better 
>  rationalize the behavior of their network from the configured RA's." 

And I replied to this justification, saying this itself cannot justify
killing on-link caching while (perhaps implicitly) allowing address
caching.

> Also, when Suresh Krishnan pointed out that he supports bullet 3, he
> made us explicitly mention in the bullet that it's a new rule. We have
> been clear in the draft where there is a new rule and where it's
> clarification. Besides this new rule, the rest of the draft is
> clarification.

Suresh has his right to express his opinion, of course, and so do I.
I would not like this document to set new rules (note, again, that I'm
not objecting to discussing new changes to RFC4861/4862.  I'm simply
objecting to doing that in this document).

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------